Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[HolyCount]

I see the condem lot are now going to throw council house tennants onto the streets after two years if their income rises sufficiently since becoming social housing tenants.

Don't think they have thought this through.

This means that families could be forced into the situation of having to move every 6 months as assured 6 month tenancies come to term. Demand for private rented properties ( already getting higher) will increase beyond measure, as will rents demanded for them. This will, again, make the rents unaffordable for said families, who will find themselves back on an ever increasing council house waiting list !!!!

Would it not be fairer to allow families to remain in the council house, but increase rents as their incomes improve. The increased revenues could be set towards the provision of more houses for social housing.

Am I totally missing the point or being too simplistic

[Mr Skrunts]

Sp peoples wages increase, that wont mean they can instantly get a mortgage and move.

Depending on the area now I saw a report that desirable tennancies are being put out to sealed bids and often getting up to 20% more and forcing others out.

So the councels policy changes just because people earn more money, in that case then why dont they use thier right to buy, that will screw them up and use the extra money plus thier rental discount to buy the property instead.

[HolyCount]

Sp peoples wages increase, that wont mean they can instantly get a mortgage and move.

Depending on the area now I saw a report that desirable tennancies are being put out to sealed bids and often getting up to 20% more and forcing others out.

So the councels policy changes just because people earn more money, in that case then why dont they use thier right to buy, that will screw them up and use the extra money plus thier rental discount to buy the property instead.

It wouldn't surprise me, Skruntie, if the Right to Buy was the next thing to go.

[Varche]

What incentive would there be to move from no income to a good income by working hard?

I was told a situation yesterday about a young couple out here that had a baby. They moved back to London to "get a flat" on the DHS. Now they have fallen out and both need flats on the DHS. Oh and there is a court case (taxpayers money) for a trumped up assault charge - battered single mum straight to the top of the housing list. How the other half live.

[TheBoy]

What a fantastic idea by the Government.  I just sincerely hope they have the balls to pull it off.

Council Houses, sorry, Social Housing, should be reserved for the most needy.  And by needy, I don't mean the Bletchley peroxide blonde teenagers who get up the duff several times in order to secure a home for life.

[Psychoca]

Sp peoples wages increase, that wont mean they can instantly get a mortgage and move.

Depending on the area now I saw a report that desirable tennancies are being put out to sealed bids and often getting up to 20% more and forcing others out.

So the councels policy changes just because people earn more money, in that case then why dont they use thier right to buy, that will screw them up and use the extra money plus thier rental discount to buy the property instead.

It wouldn't surprise me, Skruntie, if the Right to Buy was the next thing to go.

Removing right to buy has already been indicated...

The other thing to remember is that there have been a lot of suggestions that have been stopped further along the line as not being appropriate...

I personally feel and have done for a very long time, that the "Buy for Let" area of the property market must be pushed into higher value properties and not the entry level property prices.  Doing this would help to control the cost of property to make house ownership a more viable option...

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I see the condem lot are now going to throw council house tennants onto the streets after two years if their income rises sufficiently since becoming social housing tenants.

Don't think they have thought this through.

This means that families could be forced into the situation of having to move every 6 months as assured 6 month tenancies come to term. Demand for private rented properties ( already getting higher) will increase beyond measure, as will rents demanded for them. This will, again, make the rents unaffordable for said families, who will find themselves back on an ever increasing council house waiting list !!!!

Would it not be fairer to allow families to remain in the council house, but increase rents as their incomes improve. The increased revenues could be set towards the provision of more houses for social housing.

Am I totally missing the point or being too simplistic

This could be a possible compromise HC.... But there are no definitive answers in my view...For example..If one Council tenant on a high income....pays..(let's say) £800...each month...and another on a lower income pays £400 each month for identical accommodation....then presumably the tenant paying the most will be tempted to secure a mortgage....thus freeing up his council house for the very people who need one most..(young couples ..possibly with  children who are on a low wage)

However.....even with a large deposit ....and a generous income it is not easy to secure a mortgage these days as the banks won't lend. :-/ :-/ :-/

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

What a fantastic idea by the Government.  I just sincerely hope they have the balls to pull it off.

Council Houses, sorry, Social Housing, should be reserved for the most needy.  And by needy, I don't mean the Bletchley peroxide blonde teenagers who get up the duff several times in order to secure a home for life.

It's not only their fault TB......You should have used a condom....

[Mr Skrunts]

Just worked it out.  It's the fact they want to free houses up for the boat people and the imigrants that just decend on us and demand benifits and housing.  :-/

[Gaffers]

What a fantastic idea by the Government.  I just sincerely hope they have the balls to pull it off.

Council Houses, sorry, Social Housing, should be reserved for the most needy.  And by needy, I don't mean the Bletchley peroxide blonde teenagers who get up the duff several times in order to secure a home for life.

+1

[Dishevelled Den]

What incentive would there be to move from no income to a good income by working hard?

I was told a situation yesterday about a young couple out here that had a baby. They moved back to London to "get a flat" on the DHS. Now they have fallen out and both need flats on the DHS. Oh and there is a court case (taxpayers money) for a trumped up assault charge - battered single mum straight to the top of the housing list. How the other half live.

How the other half live

Quite so V and many of them are more than adept at manipulating the system for their own purposes.

[TheBoy]

What a fantastic idea by the Government.  I just sincerely hope they have the balls to pull it off.

Council Houses, sorry, Social Housing, should be reserved for the most needy.  And by needy, I don't mean the Bletchley peroxide blonde teenagers who get up the duff several times in order to secure a home for life.

It's not only their fault TB......You should have used a condom....

Good God man, I wouldn't touch them with yours

[geoffr70]

Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it

[albitz]

Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it

Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?
The people you and others speak off - on benefits, wont work, get up the duff as a lifestyle/ career choice - wont be affected at all by this muddled thinking policy. It is aimed at people who work and pay their own way in the world. It looks like they will be caught in a trap, whereby it wont pay to work too hard, or make too much effort to pay their rent etc. because it could mean the house they have called home for 5, 10, or even 20 years or more could be taken from them and given to someone who has never paid a months rent or council tax since the day they were born. Or possibly couldnt have picked the U.K. out on a map of the world a short time ago.
More muddled thinking and Govt. by gimmick from the new tories.
The question Im asking is why ? - if this is the proposed solution, what is the problem they think it will solve ?
I may be missing the blindingly obvious here, but why would anyone live in social housing if they can afford to buy their own home ?? :-/

P.S. Believe me social tenants are not mollycoddled, far from it. It can be nigh on impossible to get essential repairs done to a housing Association home. The associations are gravy trains, and the people who run them try every trick in the book to spend as little as possible on their housing stock, so they can retain as much money as possible for their own salaries and bonuses.

[aaronjb]

Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it

Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?

Depends on their salary and amount of deposit, but assuming a conservative 10% deposit and salary of £40k, about £900 a month - more if the salary is less (assuming you could find someone who'd lend, which is unlikely) less if the deposit is more.

That's a fairly hefty discount in my book.